Quote Originally Posted by Michael Joseph View Post
Let me see if I have this right. Someone signed up for a license so that someone might make a use of taxpayer funded roadways of which the Federal Reserve Board of Governors would have an interest. In application of said license someone by express trust [signature bond in fidelity] agreed to bind one's self to the motor vehicle code in the State which that one occupies upon. And now when said applicant [for benefits] has been shown to be in violation of his/her word, by witness of an officer [dejure] of the Federal Reserve districts, then that one assumes that he/she can just refuse a good faith notice issued from the very same venue of which said license was obtained?

If I was a judge I would ignore such a fruitless motion as r4c in this matter as well. Basically, this one gave his/her word and refuses to keep it. So be it. The benefit of license most likely will be revoked. Shoot if this matter came before my court I would have no other option but to do exactly that - justice must be done. And since God can't lie, man should not lie. ...

I find it amazing that someone would actually make an argument before another man concerning his manhood. It is so simple - make a promise, then keep a promise. If you don't desire to contract then don't. But at least learn the law structure. For how can one make a use of law and then claim to be not subject to that law?
What this poster is saying might be true if he had the facts straight. Unfortunately, he does not have the facts straight for everyone who might become involved in an issue such as this, and therefore is speaking (to use a David Merrill term) gibberish and only for himself, based upon a misunderstanding of lawful process.

Someone signed up for a license so that someone might make a use of taxpayer funded roadways of which the Federal Reserve Board of Governors would have an interest.
The driver license issued by a state is not a lawful contract at law. It does not contain the five requisites necessary for a lawful contract to come into existence. It is issued by a state based upon the evidence of a certificate of birth having been shown at the time of application. The certificate of birth identifies an artificial person who is presumed to be a U.S. citizen (to be clear here it is the artificial person who is presumed to be a U.S. citizen, not the natural man or woman), otherwise the person could not have been issued the birth certificate. Therefore the driver license is issued to the applicant as a privilege of assumed citizenship (according to the corporate charter, the U.S. Constitution, whose perceived nature was totally modified when amended by the 14th Amendment), but does not impose any compelled performance on the man or woman, only upon such person who agrees to be identified as the surety for the artificial person (legal fiction) NAMED on the license.

Yet none of these facts are disclosed to the applicant either at the time or after the application for a driver license is made. The applicant is assumed to already know them. In most instances the applicant enters the arrangement without full knowledge of all the material facts. But this does not negate the applicant's ability to modify his recognition of the matter in the future. A valid meeting of the minds cannot therefore take place if only one party is aware of all the material facts at the inception of the agreement. This fact alone nullifies the agreement of compelled performance under the law of contracts at law as long as the person understands how to invoke his choice of law under common law in a corporate courtroom.

Does anyone here know what the five requisites for a valid contract are? A lawful contract at law has the following five (or six) requisites:

Any contract in common law legal systems will itself define the terms of the law, thus superseding any constitutional requirements, and will have all the following five elements which bind each party to the agreement: an (i) “offer” or “subject matter” and (ii) “acceptance” or “meeting of the minds” by (iii) “competent parties” having legal capacity who exchange (iv) “valuable consideration” to create (v) “mutuality of obligation.”

The possible sixth requisite in the matter of a written contract would be the signatures of both parties, thus binding both parties to the agreement. Do you see the State's signature on your driver license? Or even the signature of an agent for the State? There is only one signature on that document, and that is the applicant's. Only one party to the alleged agreement has signed under penalty of perjury, the other party has not. This fact alone nullifies the so-called agreement! In addition, the other party has not disclosed all the material facts surrounding the terms of the so-called agreement, thereby opening the other party to the charge of an act of fraud!

A “meeting of the minds” indicates the ability of each party to negotiate the terms for the agreement. In a driver license, those term are non-negotiable, and are made on a “take it or leave it” basis. This means that no meeting of the minds took place, thereby invalidating the agreement from the get go! No one can be compelled to perform under what is essentially an unconscionable contract!

...then that one assumes that he/she can just refuse a good faith notice issued from the very same venue of which said license was obtained? If I was a judge I would ignore such a fruitless motion as r4c in this matter as well. Basically, this one gave his/her word and refuses to keep it.
The above statement is so riddled with miscomprehension of legal process and ignorance of actual Law that it nearly defies logical analysis. Anyone who buys into the misconceptions stated in the above passage is buying into a falsehood.

The first misconception is that a “refusal for cause” of a matter is a motion before a court. Quite simply, it is most assuredly not. A motion before a court presumes that there are two parties present and competent to make motions to move a court. And before a court can assume jurisdiction in a matter, the plaintiff must first establish jurisdiction over the accused for the court to even hear the matter in the first place. If the accused returns plaintiff's process “refused” (but not “refused for cause”), the accused has provided prima facie evidence of jurisdiction for the plaintiff in the matter. That evidence is enough for the court to proceed in the matter (that is, until the accused objects to the lack of a material fact relevant to jurisdiction not having been placed in evidence, but merely presumed).

The refusal for cause takes place at the level of the two parties presumably in controversy, before any matter is even brought up to a court. When the accused notifies the court that the matter being brought by the plaintiff has been refused for cause, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to correct his process before entering it with the court. The notice to the court that the matter was “refused for cause” is made to prevent a fraud upon the court (as well as to provide the court with evidence of an objection to the presumed jurisdiction in the matter, specifically, personam jurisdiction, a choice of Law) prior to the plaintiff's correction of his process.

Another misconception is that the accused can “just refuse a good faith notice.” This is a misstatement of fact in the matter of a properly executed refusal for cause involving a driver license and traffic violation. The statement would be true if a person simply returned a complaint (citation) to its issuer simply stating on its face that he was “refusing” the complaint as explained above. Simply refusing a complaint like this would be seen by the court as a response to the plaintiff, providing the plaintiff with evidence of personam jurisdiction in the matter through the assumption of a second party.

But in the matter of a properly executed refusal for cause, there is a significance at law in the phrase “for cause.” A refusal for cause is not a simple refusal of a complaint issued by a plaintiff. The phrase “for cause” indicates that there is a legal cause in the complaint being objected to in the matter, and that for the matter to be able to proceed to court, that that matter first needs to be corrected before the accused will consent to enter the court to respond to the matter.

The whole phrase that is written on a frivolous presentment is: “Refused for cause, timely, without dishonor and without recourse to Me.” The matter is not being dishonored, but rather a presumption of material fact in the complaint is being objected to before the accused will consent to respond to the matter. The objection to a material fact is the cause that is being referenced in the refusal for cause.

Therefore, it is not a simple refusal to take seriously a complaint being lodge by another party. Someone who simply refuses such a complaint without referencing an objection to a material fact (whether that fact be of law or a fact related to what occurred which produced a wrong to one of the parties) stated in the complaint has responded to the matter just as it was laid out in the original complaint. In doing so, such respondent has waived both requisites for jurisdiction in the matter: both subject matter and personam jurisdiction. Therefore the matter may proceed forward as far as the court is concerned.

When one properly objects to such a preposterous issue, and one uses a valid legal process to lodge that objection, one can prevail in the matter despite all the political rhetoric being bantered about by this poster.